get_session_replay

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the return payload (replay report with the new Session's id) and an error case, which is useful behavioral context, but omits permission requirements, whether the call is read-only/safe to retry, and how it behaves while the replay is still running.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Compact and front-loaded with the core action and the sibling linkage first. The reST directive fragments are a little terse but each line adds information; nothing is wasted.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what it returns (replay report plus Session id), the error case, and both parameters. Reasonably complete for a 2-param read tool, with only permission/retry semantics left implicit.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It documents both parameters, notably giving provenance for ``replay_run_id`` ('from ``replay_session``'), which is meaningful beyond the bare schema titles. It doesn't specify the id format or pipeline_name constraints, keeping it short of a 5.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb ('Reads') and resource ('a session replay'), and ties it directly to the sibling ``replay_session`` that generates the id. It clearly distinguishes itself from the tool that starts the replay, though the phrase 'handed back while it was still running' is slightly awkward.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage (retrieve the replay produced by ``replay_session``) and notes the return depends on the replay having ended, but never explicitly states when to call this versus ``replay_session`` or what to do if the replay hasn't finished.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.